> And what about ?Marx and Engels' observation that socialization of > production is a tendency of capitalism ? ...
I'm saying that "socialization" may not always be such a good thing for the working class. ^^^^ CB: Who says socialization of production is ever a good thing for the working class ? "Socialization" is the terminology of Marx and Engels. . ^^^^^ > Marxists say the central contradiction of capitalism is between > socialized production and privatized (centralized) _appropriation_. > It's socialization of _appropriation_ , not production, that is > "progressive" , good quality reform,no ? the Egyptian Pharaoh (and the rest of the ruling class) socialized both production and appropriation. For the socialization of appropriation to be a good thing (from the left point of view), it has to go along with democratization. ^^^^^ CB: I'm not so sure that from Marx and Engels' standpoint what the Pharoh did wasn't good thing. If there was socialization of appropriation that would mean there was no exploitation. With no exploitation there would be no class antagonism and that would be democratization. Cheikh Diop has a whole discussion of why there were no revolutions in Egypt in _Civilization or Barbarism_ > The socialization of appropriation aspect of the Five Year Plan in > Soviet Union was a good thing. Executing and imprisoning many,many, > many was bad. Socializing appropriation was good.... the plans never worked well. Even if they _had_ worked well, they would have served the Soviet ruling class, not working people. ^^^^^ CB: Soviet economic production increased rapidly, so they worked well in some ways; and the Soviet working class was served very much by that as the appropriation was social, not private, meaning the working class got a big cut. The Soviet leadership was not privately appropriating. -- _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
